babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

latest polling thread - 5 july, 2012

Comments

Doesn't matter what Bob Rae was back then, it was a different party and political era and a different political point in his life. However progressive he may have been, that died along time ago and the Bob Rae of today is far less progressive then Andrea, Bob supported Harper well over a hundred times on key bills, like Afrganistan, budgets, ect... Without getting any concessions. Bob Rae new democract died long ago, along with his soul, unleashing the demon spawn Liberal we all know and loath. Don't kid yourself about Justin either, he's cut from the same cloth.

Doesn't matter what Bob Rae was back then, it was a different party and political era and a different political point in his life. However progressive he may have been, that died along time ago and the Bob Rae of today is far less progressive then Andrea, Bob supported Harper well over a hundred times on key bills, like Afrganistan, budgets, ect... Without getting any concessions. Bob Rae new democract died long ago, along with his soul, unleashing the demon spawn Liberal we all know and loath. Don't kid yourself about Justin either, he's cut from the same cloth.

Fair enough, but it's absurd to suggest that Rae was "really a Liberal" when he has with the NDP. Otherwise that would be even more true of Dexter and Selinger today.

I don't blame Bob in the outcome as he was only one person in the NDP govt. For sure, he would have lots of influence as the leader but he did not get elected alone. Having said that, I also recognize that the Ontario NDP govt was not an island in itself, and there was a wider context and political/economic environment both nationally and globally.

So you have the Mulroney PCs in power in Ottawa with Bank of Canada policy to have 1% inflation and sucking the life out of our economy during a very bad recession. Every govt, fed and prov was in doggy do-do, so I don't put all the blame on Bob Rae. And also we had a business class in Ontario that would not let the NDP rule.

I just with the NDP had put in Public Auto Insurance.

I think we do a big disservice to our history when we decide to delete the context of the times.

34 Cons, 27 NDP, 24 Libs. Margin of error probably 3 or 4 points. NDP could still be and likely are at 30 or 31%. OF COURSE Alan Gregg says Canadians "are returning to their normal voting patterns", implying the NDP is finished. Ontario numbers are bad. I think that is where the problem is. NDP still leading in Qubec ahead of the everyone, the Bloc are closest.

I expected the numbers would dip over the summer. When the House isn't sitting the headlines go soft for the Conservatives and there's no showcase for the Official Opposition. Let's seen where we are in two or three months.

Most of the drop in NDP support nationally is because in Quebec they have gone from 42% to 31% - why? My theory is that this poll was in field entirely during that last week and immediate aftermath of the Quebec election. Its natural that the two federal parties that share a brand with the two leading Quebec provincial parties (the BQ and Liberals) will get some "bounce" due to people being aksed how they would vote federally when 99% of political space is being occupied by provincial politics....I suspect that within weeks the BQ and LPC will drop back into the teens in Quebec and the NDP will be back at 40%+

According to the Harris-Decima poll, the NDP were leading in Quebec with 31 per cent support, compared with 25 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, 24 for the Liberals, 15 for the Tories and four for the Greens.

The Conservatives had a 10-point lead in Ontario, with 39 per cent to the Liberals’ 29, the NDP’s 23 and the Greens’ six.

The NDP and Conservatives were tied at 33 per cent in British Columbia, with the Liberals at 19 and the Greens at 13.

The Conservatives held a commanding lead in Alberta and Manitoba/Saskatchewan. But they trailed with only 25 per cent in Atlantic Canada, where the NDP and Liberals were statistically tied at 34 and 32 per cent, respectively.

So in BC we are tied with the Cons and yet, provincially the NDP is like hugely popular, and the Cons because of the oil pipeline are in the dumpster. I find that so fishy.

And in Ontario, the NDP leader brand is big and we just won a bi election, big time, and the cons took a huge hit there, and their leader is in the dumpster, and yet federally the Cons lead. Something is so off here.

This poll is a weird one and any poll reversal is concerning to people after a huge bounce of the last year. But poll numbers are not the issue here as I'll explain.

An end of summer poll has the lightest weight of all; a fall session is coming up and it will overwhelm this poll in importance within a few days. The NDP will have to perform well the next two months. If they perform badly a slide could start that could be very difficult to break if only because there are too many in the media that will want to ride it for all its worth. But, more likely, the NDP will come back knowing what they need to do. This will lead to a see-saw fight with the Liberals as they go through their convention year. I suspect the NDP will have some difficult days but will come out ready to fight the Conservatives for the government in the next election.

The greatest fear of course is that even with a dropping Conservative support which is likely to come over time, the Liberals and NDP could still split the opposition vote enough to allow the Cons to slip through. The NDP has two fights it must win. First it has to beat the Liberals back to hold sole contention for government and then it has to beat the Cons for that role. But, as I'll get to later the greatest fear may not be the greatest challenge.

Still, it is a huge challenge. The NDP strategy in the recent past has been to have the leader ignore the Liberals and prove more effective going after the Cons. This remains the best strategy. The leader will need to stick to it. If the party has to take a shot at the Liberals from time to to time then this would be left to someone other than the leader.

The NDP will need to be careful to pick the right battles but will not have full control of the variables. First the NDP has to fight mostly on the economy because this is going to be where they have to beat the Cons. The supporting fight will be procedural unfairness, corruption, dishonesty in general from the Conservatives a fight that will win points but on its own is not enough to win government. The difficulty that will provide an opening for the Liberals that must be controlled is that the next year will be a national fight by the right against unions. Unfortunately unions have continued to do so poorly with the public that anyone who stands up for them risks losing support.The NDP is going to have to stand up for what is right but at the same time manage the poor state of public good will with the unions.This fight over labour is what will decide the next election and the NDP has to manage it perfectly.

Ontario is providing a specific challenge. The governemnt is setting a horrible precedent in terms of bargaining approach with the teachers but the unions have a no-win fight on the actual areas of dispute-- they have agreed to the wage freeze but still tout it as a reason for the fight. That is extremely dangerous. They do this because the other area of substance is the issue of sick days that are not just banked but cashed out at the end of careers in days off or money. Most Canadians do not support this-- in fact it is a position that could make the existence of sick days (many workers don't have them) untenable. Any support the teachers have in the public could tank because they are fighting a battle of principle with unwinnable areas of substance and doing so with the kids as the battleground. In the end this could play well for the Liberals provincially and help them federally. Of course the unions no-win position is fairly clear: they can't accept the union-busting principle that the government is laying down. The Liberals are smart to recognize the weakness of the public perception of the unions and are coming in tough on unions without making a huge mistake on the issues -- just the methods and approach. The teachers are left fighting the principle and precedent issue they cannot ignore on specific issues they cannot win. All this is critical because all the enemies may label the NDP with this lost-cause fight across the country as it repeats in other provinces. Essentially this could put the NDP in a position where it has to fight the poorly managed public relations challenges of unions for them. I point to the Ontario situation not because I perceive Ontario as the whole country but because this is a fight that risks being played out everywhere and already has been.

Unions need to do a much better job of managing their public relations in a context where they know the public may not be with them. Going after extra-curricular activities of students is not a smart move in this as they are in Ontario. Saying this is all we can do is not smart if this cannot lead to a victory. The federal NDP cannot stay silent on this (the more general union fight not the specific teacher's fight) and are being drawn in to it. This is going to be the big challenge they will face this year. They will need to speak up for labour nationally while avoiding specific provincial fights especially when they are mismanaged by the unions involved.

So the challenges in summary:

1) the fight with the Cons largely over the economy

2) the fight with the Liberals during their leadership

3) the challenge of a public fight between establishment and the right and labour unions which the unions may not be doing the best job on communications as they themselves are in a bad position and the NDP is tied in the mind of the public to them. this in my view is the big one.

Again on the last which I have put the most emphasis because I think it is the most dangerous of the three for the NDP, the NDP must resist the temptation to try to distance themselves from labour if labour is doing poorly. If labour loses this fight so will the NDP. Like it or not the NDP as the left standard bearer is tied to labour's struggle and will need to work with labour to make sure that this extremely difficult conflict is won. At the end of the day if it is lost an NDP government will not be able to function within its principles anyway as there will be no money. This is a basic fact coming from the reality that further erosion of the middle class make collective responses to issues and funding of social programs (as they are or should be) impossible.

This may in fact need to be the main message the NDP and the unions put out-- lose your labour unions, you lose your middle class; lose your middle class and you lose medicare, public education, public pensions, social assistance-- everything that prevents a return to extreme 19th century social inequality. If the public are not made to understand this the battle will be lost-- not just one of whether the NDP will be governemnt, but the viability of any socially progressive approach in politics or public policy. Lose this fight and even if you win government, you won't be able to do much with it.

In other words-- people have to fight for the existence of the middle class- if you lose that then there is no point in the NDP getting government (it will have no economic ability to turn the tide within one term). If we lose, those political parties we think are on our side will sell us out. If we win then political parties that are against us will be forced to do less harm and even perhaps some good. The NDP will rise or fall on the fight for the middle class and that will rise or fall on the fight for unionization and relevance of labour unions and this is a fight that is already underway.

If the NDP get this dynamic, then they have a good chance and a big fight. If they don't get this dynamic then the fight is already lost. You could say this does not belong in this thread. I would reply that this is the reason this current poll and polls in general don't matter-- this is what does matter and the polls of the future as well as the policies of the next decade ride on this understanding.

Well Sean, the "fight over sick days" is a red herring, considering that teachers do not get 4% vacation pay. The reason they bargained sick days as such, is because it turned out to be cheaper for the govt in the "long run".

First, people get vacation pay, vacations or equivalent in holidays. Nobody gets all of them and sick days has absolutely nothing to do with it. The person who suggested otherwise is misinformed even if they are a teacher.

Vacation pay: This is typically paid to people with hours that change such as part time workers. It is also often paid to minimum wage workers. The idea is that you get the same legal entitlement as a full time worker with 2 weeks vacation or holidays a year. They would still get the statutory holidays paid on a pro rata basis.

Vacation: People who work in places where they choose their vacations don't get vacation pay, they get paid vacation days. They also get stat holidays.

Holidays: People who due to the nature of their employment cannot choose their time off like Teachers instead of getting vacation (which you take at your time of choosing) get holidays which replace vacation. That said, while teachers do not choose when the time off is taken they actually get a bit more of it. It is socially understood that while teachers may get extra holidays in some parts of the year they work more than the paid hours at other times of the year. Those who are informed recognize that teachers put in as much work as other workers in a year but it is compressed into fewer days of the year. A large amount of unpaid time is also typical.

There is however, no relationship between the concept, application, public policy or negotiation between sick days and vacation, holidays etc. Also teachers are not the only ones to have mandatory holidays and they are also not the only ones to have sick day banks and there is no consistency between the two as some people who have standard vacations (rather than vacation pay or holidays) also have sick day banking and there is a huge debate over whether this is reasonable.

Connecting teachers' holiday policies to sick day banking is misleading and false. It is also false to suggest that all other workers get vacation pay because vacation pay is actually quite rare among full time workers who instead get either vacations at their choice or mandated holidays where that is not possible.

FWIW: I don't get vacation pay as I am a full time worker. I do get vacations because I get to choose when they are but I do not get long stretches of holidays. Nobody gets more than one of the three: large numbers of mandated holidays beyond stats, 2 weeks plus in vacation days or vacation pay -- you only get one of the three.

Anyway Jan, I hope that page you sent us to is not a union page but an informal place since it is utterly specious.

But there is clearly a problem with communications and dancing facts -- the result as I said is unhelpful to either the teachers or the union movement in general. It is also so patently ridiculous that much of the public would see right through it even if they were not very informed.

People see right through it. I recognize that people some times make up arguments but in this case they should not have to-- the teacher's union ought to be in a position where they put out enough facts that they don't need this kind of fact creation for individuals to justify their positions. This is a fine illustration of my point that the communications are screwed up and teachers will lose and the union movement will be set back. The teachers' unions need to set the facts straight and communicate this properly.

I contacted the union and asked for a one-pager on this stuff last week in order to help support them-- nothing I recived was anything but weak, lame and contradictory. I sure hope they get their shit together because all unionized workers pay for this. I also feel that this is a disservice to teachers because in fact there are very good arguments for why the union is fighting but they are not making them coherently. I am considering gathering them and making a one pager myself and sending it to them becuase I am alarmed by where I think this could go.

With this Nanos poll as well the NDP would actually probably be in first place were it not for the "Quebec election effect". The poll was in field Sept. 4-9, and had NDP support down to 33% and Liberals support at 25%... But as I have said earlier, I think this is a very temporary Liberal bump in Quebec because people were being asked in an unprompted question how they would vote federally just as 31% of them were putting an "X" in front of a box marked "Liberal" in the provincial election.

With this Nanos poll as well the NDP would actually probably be in first place were it not for the "Quebec election effect". The poll was in field Sept. 4-9, and had NDP support down to 33% and Liberals support at 25%... But as I have said earlier, I think this is a very temporary Liberal bump in Quebec because people were being asked in an unprompted question how they would vote federally just as 31% of them were putting an "X" in front of a box marked "Liberal" in the provincial election.

Stock, my thoughts exactly. I suspect that in fact the NDP is at least tied, if not leading the Tories. I suspect there may have been a little movement to the Libs as well, but more then likely, right wing Ontario Libs "coming home". Although I generally don't trust Nanos, this confirms what I was feeling after reading Harris Decima. I don't trust Allan Gregg at all, or really Nik Nanos either, and didn't believe the HD poll at all.

Regarding Sean's post, I think he nailed it again. If the NDP is going to break through, we absolutely have to get people to realize that the NDP is the only choice if the Middle Class wants to prosper. I said this before and I will say it again, this means we are going to have to hammer the Libs and force them to take positions on our issues. I suspect they won't want to and will try to obfuscate, and that is the easieest way to get rid of them. Take the MP in my riding, that putz, Lamoureux. He is always talking about how he is "fiscally responsible", minded. We need to nail him on that and force him to tell people where he stands in terms of how the Martin budgets hurt ordinary working Canadians. We need to try and drag Martin, and Chretien into this. They will both blow. Martin because he is the effete "Mr. Dithers", and Chretien, because he has an arrogance and temper that would make it "easy to push his buttons". We have to stop being afraid of these guys and work on getting people to uderstand what voting LPC actually means.

I saw we hammer them, and hammer them relentlessly. Those guys will fold like a House-of-Cards, no question. We need to take the fight to them. They'll blow it big time.

I expected the numbers would dip over the summer. When the House isn't sitting the headlines go soft for the Conservatives and there's no showcase for the Official Opposition. Let's seen where we are in two or three months.

This reminds me of what public opinion polling was doing during the life of Paul Martin's minority government. Occaisionally the polls would show the Conservatives ahead, but then the next one would show them behind the Liberals again. Even though the Conservatives could never hold first place in 2 consecutive polls, the foundation for their breakthrough in 2006 was being built. I think a similar thing is happening now with the NDP. Of course, the polls will be all over the place, but I think the foundation is being built.

Besides, I'd much rather the NDP be nearly tied with the Conservatives than far ahead in an off-election period, simply to serve as a guard against complacency.

I just want to catch up on two questions earlier in this thread that I had previously missed:

1) Why do parties in Quebec not have brand associations with federal parties?

These associations have not, for the most part been seen as beneficial. The dynamics of Quebec politics make such associations problematic. Much of the political debate in Quebec surrounds areas of huge disagreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada. A party with the policies to be successful in Quebec provincially is unlikely to find much support in the rest of Canada. It is possible federally since the dynamic is different but provincial governments tend to have to oppose Ottawa. This dynamic has been true in other provinces as well but they have supported parties that did not win so it was not as difficult. The Conservatives in Alberta are having to distance themselves from Harper. BC only has one party with direct ties that are branded (the NDP) the Liberal party is close in many respects to the federal Cons but they just date -- they won't get married. It is actually very risky for the NDP to build a brand in Quebec provincial politics. Problem is it is also risky not to. Likely a party that is friendly but considered quite independent from the federal cousins would be better than either having a close relationship that implies automatic national Canadian accountability for provincial policies in Quebec or no relationship and automatic opposition from all provincial parties. It may also be better for there to be an NDP provincially than to have the NDP increasingly associated with QS (there are reasons that is not a match made in heaven).

2) What can the NDP do to combat the extra might of the Cons i money and ongoing campaigning. The NDP is going to be on the defensive given the greater resources of the Cons. They are not going to win all the battles or be able to set an agenda very long. This is not hopeless, however. The NDP has to win three related points and convince people of a fourth. Other issues need to take a back seat. So while the Cons scatter their attacks the NDP must be careful not to divert their resources beyond a strategy of linking a response to the Cons to these messages the NDP has.

These messages are:

1) The Cons lying constantly and are ethically bankrupt. This is easy to link to response of any Conservative campaign. If this sticks the NDP will be immune to direct attack from them. I would suggest a series of ads giving examples of Conservatives lying to brand them as crooks and cheats. Obviously this must be done carefully but if the issues are ones that the public already is aware of then making this message stick is a real possibility. If it does then every campaign the Cons mount could backfire. Ultimately this is how to defeat them.

2) The Cons represent interests that are in opposition to most Canadians; they are not on your side they are on the side of.... This is also an ongoing message that can be related to everything that is being said by the Cons. The NDP represents the issues and values of Canadians.

3) The NDP can lead the economy and has strong policies that will benefit Canadians while the Cons will bleed most Canadians dry. This is actually a partial positive message.

If the NDP wins the debate on these three -- the rest won't matter. All communications need to move to this. Not only must the conclusion be obvious-- the actual statement must be made explicitly. That is what the NDP does not do enough.

Read on Huff post there was a survey that put Harper first out of all of Canada's Prime Ministers for worst Prime Minister. Finally I can say Harper deserves to be number 1 :p
But to be honest he'd have to fight pretty damn hard to be worse then Chrien/Martin.

That's the problem with most pundits - they are full of biases, like we all are, so even before they open their mouths, you know what their spin will say.

The Canadian business establishment bosses, their mainstream press allies, even the CBC, do NOT want the NDP elected anywhere. So of course the 99% of people who work for them will sing the company tune or they will be out of a job. Sure they let one or two NDP pundits get a kick at the can occasionally, but overall, 99% of the media coverage in Canada is both anti-NDP and anti-union.

Under such circumstances it is surprising the NDP ever gets elected anywhere, and is a real credit to the NDP's abilities that they obtain the success they do.